don't miss it. see you tomorrow. it's friday. it will be a two drink minimum and a cover charge but i would like you to show up. don't go anywhere. now you can watch tucker. >> tucker: well, good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." the downfall of hollywood producer harvey weinstein is essentially complete tonight. the allegations are far too numerous to ignore. he has been fired from his own company and he is apparently in some kind of rehab facility talking about himself while the nypd investigates criminal charges against him. whatever happens next,, you pretty much know what harvey weinstein's wikipedia entry is going to say 20 years from now. but the larger weinstein saga is just beginning. many powerful people knew what harvey weinstein was doing and not only ignored his crimes but actively tookrv his side against his many victims. it's a long list, but at the very top of that list is

nbc news. nbc had the story months ago. their former anchor, ronan farrow, conclusively exposed more than a dozen allegations against weinstein by women who say he sexually harassed, groped, even raped them, but the network killed that investigation. nbc news president noah oppenheim said the company had good reason for doing that, but did the company have good reason? trace gallagher isny taking very close look at this question and he joins us with an answer. trace? >> tucker, nbc has been on the record saying the reason they decided not to run the ronan farrow story on harvey weinstein is because they didn't have enough reporting to go on the air. well, now a number of outlets including "the daily beast" and "huffington post" are refuting that, saying that farrow began reporting back in january, and by july, he had interviewed at least eight weinstein accusers and also secured the coveted new york police audiotape of weinstein admitting he groped a

22-year-old italian c model. listen. >> then in august, a woman who accused weinstein of rape agreed to an on-camera interview as long as she was in silhouette and not identified. saying not only did nbc news refuse to provide a camera crew, they tried to stop the interview altogether and tried to stop farrow from reporting on the story altogether, so farrow paid forvi the camera crew himself. nbc says the opposite, saying, "ronan wanted to keep forging ahead so we didn't want to state -- stand in his way, and he took it to 'the new yorker' and did a ton more extraordinary work."k but people inside and outside nbc reportedly claimed that they slow-walked the story and ran it up the corporate chain, not just news president

andy lack but all the way up to nbc/universal ceo, stephen burke, something news employees call unprecedented. in fact, some told the huffpost that weinstein's attorneys tried to kill the story and nbc news appeared to be synonymous. and it should be noted that last week when "the new york times" first broke the story, both cbs and abc ran it during the evening newscast. nbc did not, saying weinstein was not a nationally recognized figure. the same excuse was used for pulling a weinstein skit from "saturday night live." tucker? >> tucker: thanks, trace. let's be clear. nbc is lying.. yesterday news division head noah oppenheim said they "encouraged farrow to run the story." the opposite is true. they pressured him to drop it. oppenheim saying that he was given resources to report the story over many, many months. maybe except for a camera crew.

oppenheim says the farrow story was "not the story we were looking at when we made our judgment." yet another lie. as farrow told rachel maddow, he finished the bulk of his reporting when he went to the "the new yorker." that is why the magazine accepted his piece in the first place. >> why did you end up reporting this story for the "the new yorker" and not for nbc news? >> you would have to ask nbc and nbc executives about the details of that story. i'm not going to comment on any news organization's story that they did or didn't run. >> nbc says that the story wasn't publishable, that it wasn't ready to go by the time that you brought it to them. obviously it was ready to go by the time you got it into "the new yorker." >> i walked into the door at "the new yorker" with an explosively reportable piece that should have been public earlier, and immediately, obviously, "the new yorker" recognized that, and it is not accurate to say it was not reportable. in fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at nbc. >> tucker: we'd bet money that her employer didn't want rachel

maddow to do that segment, but she did it anyway. good for her. why did a purported news organization killer a blockbustr news story? presumably we will find out at some point. this is a scandal, and the truth has a way of emerging from those in the end. one possible explanation is noah oppenheim. in addition to being the head of nbc news, he is a screenwriter with deep ties to the movie business and the democratic party establishment. could it be that oppenheimen haa business relationship with the weinstein company? it is not a far-fetched possibility as all, and yet, as of earlier today, oppenheim refused to say. noah oppenheim ought to resign immediately, and if he doesn't, he ought to be fired immediately by nbc's parent company, comcast. news executives are not allowed to tell lies. they are not allowed to participate in coverups. they ought to answer straightforward questions straightforwardly.r when they don't, you know they are corrupt, and that is exactly what nbc news is. for more on the broader media efforts to protect harvey

weinstein in the middle of all this, we are joined by joe concha, a reporter with "the hill" newspaper. so the red flag for me -- and these are very complicated stories and we don't know all the answers.ag but we do know that nbc news, noah oppenheim, and noah oppenheim's agent aree refusing to answer questions. did noah oppenheimer have any business relationship at all with harvey weinstein or his h company? they won't answer that question. what is the possible range of explanations for refusing to answer a simple question like that? >> that is what bothers me about that, tucker, that the head of a news organization is refusing to answer questions. he should go to, not nbc news, obviously, don't keep it in-house, butt find some other publication, somebody they don't compete with. sit down and answer questions. it'sot exactly what you would ak a journalist with nbc news to do. you can break this down 100 different ways. two ways that stick out to me, and trace brought up in hiss piece. 7.5 hours after the storya broke on thursday, the "nbc nightly

news," which is watched by 8 million people, did not cover it. that's the news side. the entertainment side, you have seth meyers and jimmy fallon, didn't do any jokes on harvey weinstein for five nights. then you have "saturday night live," as trace mentioned, there were jokes on weinstein, and then suddenly they didn't appear on air. you either believe those four entities decideded that it wasn't a story or the code red came down from somewhere and said, we're not going to touch this unless they absently had toow because it was blown wide open. that was point number one. two, we talked about this many months ago. the "access hollywood" tape. nbc property, "access hollywood." and it just happened that this tape walked out the door, that they knew about for months, maybe longer, by the way, the content of it, ended up in a "washington post" reporter's f mailbox two nights beforelo the second presidential debate. by all intents and purposes,to that should've ended the election except the candidate was trump and he was foolproof to this sort of stuff, and obviously, he won. you look at those two simple

explanations, right? those scenarios. then compare it, tucker, to what we saw this week from nbc news, and particularly yesterday where they had a bombshell report, that said the president wanted to include -- or increase, excuse me, our nuclear arsenal tenfold. and they had that in quotes, right? andle then president trump disputes that, but then secretary mattis says it is absolutely false. what was that story based on? unnamed sources. we don't know where those sources came from. could bes somebody's fathers, brothers, former roommate, we don't know. that was good enough to get to air. but ronan farrow, who had tapes, who had videotapes with actual accusers, that's not good enough for us. we don't want to get in your way. we don't want to get in your way? go take it to "the new yorker."d unpack all that and ask yourself, who do you believe? >> tucker: it's remarkable. i don't think in my life i havee ever taken the side of a politician over a news organization. it pains meke to do that.

i don't think they are legitimate. i think they are corrupt. i think they are liars and debasing their own currency. they're not the only media organization to be cast into this. there's a lot we don't know. but amazon, jeff bezos, seems to been sucked into this by rose mcgowan. do you understand that? >> i read that on the way over here on the daily mail, you have a whole bunch of tweets from rose mcgowan, who was a big actress in the '90s, accusing bezos, the amazon owner, also by the way, the owner of "the washington post," killing a series that she wanted to get on the air and said also that she was raped as well. to be honest, i don't haveno the details. you read a couple of tweets and it's hard to piece it together, but now what you're seeing here, tucker, this story has definitive legs.

it is almost now -- it is a week old and it's going to get going and going because more tjournalists like "the huffington post," like "the daily beast," like cnn, and more journalists are going to behe exposed for protecting weinstein and then even news organizations. i think nbc was betting on,po well, it's the era ofan trump ad this thing is going to blow over because the news cycle moves so fast, and it is not going away. people are not going to let this go.ng te some people in some very high places, i have a feeling, are going to be exposed in this this far more than harvey weinstein. >> tucker: the revealing part was watching the entire ruling class mobilize behind him to defend him and the indefensible. really interesting moment. joe, thank you. >> thank you.en >> tucker: for more developments in the story, which is moving quickly, we are joined by senior editor dominic patten. thank you for coming on tonight. >> thank you, tucker, for having me, ask always. >> tucker: first things first, where is harvey weinstein? >> we have heard he is now going to a rehab center in arizona, but where harvey really is right now is in a crapload of trouble.

he's got the nypd, scotland yard, and possibly the lapd looking into possibly opening investigations into criminal, charges. >> tucker: i don't think you understand, dominic, harvey weinstein is the victim here. he's got a disease. that's why he's in rehab. what do we know about the rose mcgowan allegations today? >> here is what's going on with this. ?we just had breaking news on this. this sexual harassment, obviously, is a big problem inin hollywood, and it is now affecting amazon as well. they had just put the head of their tv division, roy price, on leave for allegations of what has come out of sexual harassment that happened in 2015 with a top producer. that producer went public todayt price is now out or at least shifted aside temporarily. as for this rose mccowan situation, a, let's give full points to rose. she was one of the first peoplea talking about the harveyco weinstein situation when no one was listening to her in hollywood. she's been talking about thisis situation. essentially what she is saying is, she had a project in

development with amazon when she asked them and told them about the incident with weinstein and asked weinstein to not be, and i quote her, "bailed out." they effectively, it seems, killed her project. she is now calling foul. >> tucker: have they responded? k has bezos' office ored amazon or "the washington post," has there been any kind of response to her allegations?ha >> not on this matter, tucker, at least not as far as i can tell having come on the air with you right now. again, like the weinstein case, this is something where every hour wewe are seeing something more.ow let's go back to one thing very clearly.. less than a week after "the new york times" unveiled the story, less than two days after "the new yorker" published their story, there now 32 women, including ashley judd, rose mccowan, gwyneth paltrow, and many more who are saying that they were sexually harassed by harvey weinstein.ow including in that, three of them revealed in "the new yorker,"xu three of them are talking about rape which is why the nypd and perhaps the lapd might start looking into this once again. >> tucker: it is hard to believe, if true, that something

this vast could have continued for this long without a huge number ofve people knowing about it. it just doesn't make any sense. dominic, thank you for coming on. that was a great description of what the latest is. thanks. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: with all of the allegations against harvey weinstein, and they are mountink by the hour, one of the -- what are the legal consequences? we'll put that question to judge jeanine pirro, a longtime prosecutor specializing in sex crimes. plus, the police can't get their story straight about what happened in las vegas. to put it mildly, the press aren't asking any questions about why not. up next, we'll talk to a police expert about how this case got so bungled and what might have actually happened that tragic sunday in las vegas. stay tuned. tragic sunday in las vegas. stay tuned. she needs to go to college.

i don't know how we'll do it. ♪ never stop ♪

♪ 'til we get there ♪ with steak and shrimp? more shrimp. and you know what goes great with that shrimp? you guessed it. more shrimp. steak and unlimited shrimp, starting at $15.99. only at outback. oh, you yeah!ht butch. (butch growls at man) he's looking at me right now, isn't he? yup. (butch barks at man) butch is like an old soul that just hates my guts. (laughs) (vo) you can never have too many faithful companions. introducing the all-new crosstrek. love is out there. find it in a subaru crosstrek.

>> tucker: we've got breaking and unexpected news in the harvey weinstein case. going to bring back dominic patten of deadline for the business implications of the scandal. what have you heard? >> we just published, tucker, at the time you h and i were talki, my colleague, mike fleming jr., published a story with some of our other great reporters saying that the weinstein company itself, as harvey is looking down the barrel of these potential charges and allegations, the weinstein company itself, top hollywoodha agencies are now refusing to allow their talent to work with them, and looks like some financiers might be talking about pulling out money. in fact, the creator of "hamilton" has said he wants his film, he wants them to walk away from it. that's big news, because now you're seeing what's happening with harvey personally, you're

now seeing a company that might be on the brink. you can see all of this at deadline.com. >> tucker: dominic, thanks for that update. appreciate it. apart from the scandal, there is a very real legal element to the harvey weinstein saga. according to at least one news source, the fbi is reportedly investigating him right now, as is the l new york city police department. we are joined now by judge jeaninee pirro. before she was a judge, she was a very well-known prosecutor specializing inir sex crimes. judge, where does harvey weinstein stand legally right now? >> [laughs] in a lot of trouble, tucker. look, i heard the tape that the nypd, the special victims unit, put together. make no mistake, that tape would have been sufficient to prosecute harvey weinstein, and the excuse that the tape was

insufficient to prove a crime -- the tape that there was no intention on, or that there is no intention shown on the tape, the same argument that jim comey used with hillary. the intent is a secret, silent operation of your mind, and in this particular tape, the intent is shown by harvey weinstein's own words. a he says, "oh, i'm sorry, oh, i won't do it again." she specifically says on the tape, "but you touched my breast." he says, "i'm sorry, come in, i won't do it again." she was wired, she went to the police immediately. they see her on surveillance cameras running out, very upset, acting just like a young woman who had been groped would act. this is a predator. he is a serial predator. he has preyed on vulnerable young women, and he dangles the carrot of fame and fortune and

the ability to be in movies, and he has gotten away with it. there was a question as to whether or not cyrus vance, the d.a. who rejected this tape by the nypd, has taken money from harvey weinstein, andap i'm not suggesting thatt they are necessarily connected, but here is the bottom line. any d.a. worth his or her salt would have gone forward with a jury because this isn't just a he said, she said. this is a she said, he said, and then he said exactly what she said on the tape. >> tucker: we know that cyrus vance, the prosecutor he referred to, did take apparently $10,000 from david boies, the in-house democratic party lawyer, worked for the clintons and worked for harvey weinstein, was representing weinstein in this matter. would that be improper for a prosecutor to take money from a lawyer whose case he had just dropped? i don't understand how that is allowed.

>> unless you can show a nexus, tucker, look, david boies represents all sorts of people, and that would be hard to show a nexus between that case and that contribution and harvey weinstein. but you don't even need to go that far, tucker. you've got a case here, and anyi prosecutor worth his or her salt would have gone forward with that case. >> tucker: so why didn't they? >> the nypd did do their job. this is a stellar job wiring up a victim who, by all accounts, was impeccable in catching him in this case. >> tucker: it sure seems like it was not their fault. i don't know how much tighter they could have made the case. it gets back to the central question. f you never want to think prosecutors are corrupt because that is the deeper kind of corruption, but why wouldn't cy vance have gone forward with inthis? >> i can't get into cy vance's

mind, i don't know what he was thinking. but it's just as people say. when you've got a case with a high-profile defendant, the prosecutors very often say toy. themselves, is this going to be worth it? she credible? this guy is going to bring in all oflv the big guns, all the money. but the truth is on the tape, tucker.r. there isun nothing to argue her. turn on the tape, that the jury listen to it and send them into the deliberation room to deliberate. >> tucker: you think of all the cases that don't have that that go forward. really quickly, where does harvey weinsteinra stand now? daily mailer reports they are looking into him. do you think he is in legal jeopardy now? >> do i think? i know he is inin legal jeopardy now. this guy is a serial predator. he is a recidivist. based upon the simple stuff that we've been reading in the media, he has been doing it over and over. he has admitted he has been doing it over and over, and he claimed that, gee, i'm sorry, i'm going to get help, nobody

cares, harvey, if you could help.ha we are not social service workers. we are law enforcement. we are d.a.s.. we are in the criminal justice system. it is time for you to fess up, although he already has fessed up inn many different ways. it is time for justice, period. >> tucker: i don't know how going to a thousand-dollar-a-night facility to talk about yourself with a therapist is exculpatory in any way, but they keep pointing do to it. judge jeanine, former prosecutor jeanine pirro, thanks for joining us tonight. >> thank you, tucker. >> tucker: harvey weinstein isn't the only sexual predator inir hollywood. there is the understatement of the year. up next,to joy villa, a singer-songwriter, will tell us about thet harassment she faced during her years in the industry. interestingg segment. stay tuned for that. the indust. what started as a passion... ...has grown into an enterprise. that's why i switched to the spark cash card from capital one. now, i'm earning unlimited 2% cash back on every purchase i make.

everything. what's in your wallet? welcome! hhi!s it going? okay, so you've got two friends here. yes. this is the j.d. power award for dependability. now i want you to give it to the friend that you think is most dependable. ohhhh. ughh. wow. that's just not fair. does she have to? she doesn't have to! oh, i don't? no, but it's a tough choice, isn't it? yes. well luckily, chevy makes it a little easier. cause it's the only brand to earn j.d. power dependability awards for cars, trucks and suvs - two years in a row. that's amazing. chevy's a name you can trust!

our recent online sales success seems a little... strange?nk na. ever since we switched to fedex ground business has been great. they're affordable and fast...

maybe "too affordable and fast." what if... "people" aren't buying these books online, but "they" are buying them to protect their secrets?!?! hi bill. if that is your real name. it's william actually. hmph! affordable, fast fedex ground.

>> tucker: well, harvey weinstein is in deep trouble tonight, as we reported but his personal downfall by itself will do nothing to fix what is apparently a pretty toxic culture in the broader entertainment industry. we have joy villa, a singer-songwriter, has been for a while, she says sexual harassment and even rape are deeply ingrained in that world, the entertainment world. thank you for coming on. >> hi, tucker. >> tucker: i think anybody whohn is covering this story has gotten the text from people in l.a. saying this is nothing. you have been in that world. how common is this? >> that's right. it's absolutely prominent. that's the problem. the reason it was kept secret

for so long is because it was normal. in the entertainment industry, it's very, very common for higher upper-level execs to prey on young artists. let's look dad, it's what they do. boys will be boys, power play and so forth. that is the biggest shock in that people in the entertainment industry are not shocked at this. >> tucker: when you wentd into it, did you know that? had heard many stories. i'll tell you, i was, you know, a good girl from california. i hadn't heard a lot of stories, enough stories to warn me from it, butal when i went in -- firt i became disillusioned with the whole hollywood trap. i said, is this really how it is? why am i trying to be an artist if all i'm going to get is people trying to touch me and hurt me and take from me, and i realized i have to stay in this industrye to make it. so it became sort of a battle, a day-to-day battle, and i learned very i quickly, within a couplef months, what this industry is about. >> tucker: be specific, what is it like for a young woman

entering yourur business? what are young women likely to encounter? >> tucker, for instance, i was propositioned by a great agency in burbank, california. it was only my first couple months being in los angeles. i sent in bikini pictures. bikini photos are very common in this industry, you know, just to see what your body looks like. nothing lewd. one of the agents said, we want to see you. the main guy, the ceo of the agency, would like to see you. we love what you look like. so i was ushered into a meeting with the owner, the main guy. i wass very, very excited. i was all of probably 19 years old. and he closed the door and said, we love what you look like, and if you make me feel good, i can make you rich and famous. you give me something, i'll give you something. what do you say? and i was disgusted and i turned around. i was embarrassed. i looked down at the carpet. i said, i'm so sorry, this is

not for me. no, thank you. and i backed out of there as fast as i could. but unfortunately, i was probably one of many girls he had propositioned. and it was very straightforward. >> tucker: he was that direct about it? there was no mistaking his meaning at all? >> no. that was the worst thing. it was not something sort of sly. it wasn't even a wink-wink.k. it was, here's the deal. you do this for me and i will make it worth your while. it was straight-up prostitution, and that is how hollywood is run these days. we are going to see a lot of these stories come out even morw because the tower of hollywood, this hollywood swamp, is starting to crumble. if weinstein is getting, you know, pulled to the surface, all of these other smaller players are going to start to be -- >> tucker: i believe you, of course i do, and i've heard the same thing from others, but the part i don't understand y is why nobody said anything. that is so over-the-top. why is this the first time we're hearing this?

>> honestly, it's not really the first time you're hearing it. >> tucker: i guess that's true.>> >> a lot of people tried to say things. it's just -- it's so overlooked and it's oh, you know, she's just unhappy because she didn't get cast for the role. she is jealous. he wanted the role, so he's going to make up stories. it's buried by the actual establishment of hollywood. it's not just one evil guy. it's not just that one moment, that one perpetrator pig, it is everyone around him that is burying the story and not letting other people speak. also, they get paid off. what is a cool $100,000 to keep your mouth shut? so what if you give up your life and your career? a lot of people take those deals and walk y away. >> tucker: you kind of wonder where the feminists have been in all that. a fair question. joy, thanks for talking to us. >> not talking. thanks, tucker, appreciate it. >> tucker: chief of staff john kelly made his first public appearance at the press briefing today, he used it to deny reports there was any discord between himself and the president.

>> offer to you that, although i read it all the time pretty consistently, i'm not quitting today. [laughter] i don't believe -- and i just talked to the president -- i don't think i'm being fired today. my only frustration, with respect to everyone in the room, is when i come to work in the morning and read about things that i i allegedly said or thins that mr. trump allegedly said or people who are going to be fired or whatever, and it's just not true. that's my frustration. and i mean no disrespect to y'all. is this the iron hand i brought to the staff? >> did you? is that how you see it? you don't see that you have an iron hand? >> no, just put some organization to it. put a smile on my face. you guys with the cameras always catch me when i'm thinking hard, and it looks like i'mca frustrad and mad. i don't know all the names, so you. >> do his tweets make your job more difficult, general kelly?

>> no, no. >> tucker: tweets don't> make t harder at all, says general kelly. he's a tough soldier. well, up next, the las vegas story. police still can't get to the bottom of it or closer even settle on the basic facts of what happened. meanwhile, the media seems focused on the entirely wrong questions. what is going on? up next, we'll talk to law enforcement experts about why we still don't know anything. plus, we'll talk to the head of mark zuckerberg'sti lobbying grp which is trying to defeat the immigration policies for all the information in the world. do they have too much power? of course they do. we'll talk about that coming do up.

when you're close to the people you love, does psoriasis ever get in the way of a touching moment? if you have moderate to severe psoriasis, you can embrace the chance of completely clear skin with taltz. taltz is proven to give you a chance at completely clear skin. with taltz, up to 90% of patients had a significant improvement of their psoriasis plaques. in fact, 4 out of 10 even achieved completely clear skin. do not use if you are allergic to taltz. before starting you should be checked for tuberculosis. taltz may increase your risk of infections and lower your ability to fight them. tell your doctor if you are being treated for an infection or have symptoms. or if you have received a vaccine or plan to. inflammatory bowel disease can happen with taltz. including worsening of symptoms.

serious allergic reactions can occur. now's your chance at completely clear skin. just ask your doctor about taltz. you know win control? be now's your chance at completely clear skin. this guy. check it out! self-appendectomy! oh, that's really attached. that's why i rent from national. where i get the control to choose any car in the aisle i want, not some car they choose for me. which makes me one smooth operator. ah! still a little tender. (vo) go national. go like a pro.

>> tucker: it has been nearly two weeks since the horrifying shootings in las vegas, and unbelievably, nobody seems able to answer even the most basic questions about what actually happened.bo police initially told us that stephen paddock shot a hotel security guard m in the hallway outside his room after he had finished murdering more than 50 people on the plaza below.

then authorities changed that timeline.e what actually happened, investigators explained, was that at 9:59 that night, paddoca shot guard jesus campos in the leg after firing about 200 rifle rounds through the hotel room door. then paddock waited another 6 minutes, for some reason, before opening fire on the crowd.hr once that rampage ended, it was another hour before police entered and found paddock dead. that was the explanation as of a few hours ago. it didn't make sense, but they were going with it. now there is a new account. in a statement just this afternoon, the company that owns the hotel where paddock was staying says it has concluded that police are all wrong about whatpa happened. actually, the hotel says, armed security officers rushed to stephen paddock's room "immediately" after the shootings began. how did he respond when they get there? why was paddock able to continue shooting? we still don't know the answer to thoseed questions. but that's just the beginning of what we don't know. media outlets, for example,

reported that paddock made a living as a professional video poker player. that is technically possible. we checked today with somebody in vegas. but it is a little like ann coulter pointed out in a video today. like claiming someone made a living smoking crack. probably didn't happen. what's really going on with stephen paddock? his motive, still unknown. 64-year-old accountants don't typically spend months planning mass murder for no reason. there a was no reason. no one can even guess what it was. another question that coulter raised, how can it possibly take eight days to figure out when the alleged shooter checked into the hotel? why was paddock wearing gloves if he was about to commit suicide? have any other solitary mass shooters ever had girlfriends? to this question, we add this. how could someone possibly have broken into, burgled paddock's home in reno in middle of one oo the biggest investigations in the state? why was no one guarding the house? are investigators that incompetent? maybe they are.

eitherst way, institutional credibility is dying here. when the authorities get this wrong, people stop believing them. so nobody should be surprised when conspiracy theories rushed in to fill the void of credible information from officials. joining usus now is former secret service agent dan bongino. dan, i want to talk to you because i know you are a rigorously logical thinker. what could possibly account for the radical changes in something as simple as a timeline of the crime? you just heard it again today. >> i want to be very precise here, and i appreciate the compliment, because this case is troubling, tucker. you and i can both agree. everything you said is absolutely true. there are a lot of open questions.wh here is what i think is going on. i think there is an information gap between w the hotel and law enforcement, and i think incentives here are not the same. and i don't mean that to call out anyone. i'm not calling out. everybody wants to get to theh bottom of it.

i get that. but obviously there is legal liability on the hotel's end and the timeline has to be absolutely precise. now, the law-enforcement idea, this is just to get on the sequence of events, not necessarily the timeline by second. the difference between a 5-minute response time and a 7-minute response time for the sequence of events may not be as impactful, but for a legal lawsuit, it may make a big difference. from a law enforcement perspective, tucker, that is the only good guess, but i agree with you. this case makes almost no sensee >> tucker: one of the main reasons that people want to move to america in the first place is the belief that our law enforcement is competent, our legal system is on the level, we have real justice in this country, unlike most of the world. and when authorities believe in -- behave in a way that

suggests they have no idea what they are doing or they are not telling the whole truth, behaving in kind of a third world way, it really kind of shakes your faith, if you see what i mean. >> yeah, and i think the problem here is, with this 24-hour news cycle and social media, this is different. let's be honest. 30 years ago, walter cronkite or tom brokaw didn't mention it, it didn't happen. now it's a differentnt world. you have multiple news channels on 24 hours. people want to consume news. they are looking for a narrative and a story, and right now, this story makes no sense. i'll add another open question to you. they did some kind of aow brain autopsy and found no significant evidence of any brain trauma which, every time you look for an explanation for this case -- radicalization, brain trauma, a history of sociopathic behavior, the book is slammed shut on you. it just doesn't make sense. and that is why law enforcement has to be super careful about getting this right because people are going to fill in the narratives themselves. >> tucker: and they haven't been superca careful about gettg it right, clearly, by their own admission.o they changed the basic elements of the timeline. when was jesus campos shot? they changed that dramatically.e

are there other -- look, i never repeat conspiracy theories on tv, i think it is wrong and irresponsible. but i'm starting to think there is an entirely separate explanation because the facts we have now does not -- anyway you stack it, doesn't add up to something that i recognize as sensible. >> yeah, no, they don't. the part that puzzles me the most is why the attacker killed himself when clearly the capacity -- believe me, i'm glad the attack ended when it did. but the question is not clear as to why he ended it, given this new, revised timeline, and clearly he was prepared for a more elongated, extended attack. again, thankfully it stopped. but it just doesn't make sense. it's an open question that makes you wonder. reasonable people can ask reasonable questions about that. >> tucker: who is running this

investigation? is that the feds? still clark county. >> i would think the local bureauy office probably has jurisdiction but is seeking pretty significant input from the local locals. i just say that because in one of the press conferences, the las vegas sheriff clearly indicated that the fbi was the primary custodian of the evidence, which says to me that they are going to make it a federal jurisdiction case. >> tucker: m dan bongino, thank you for a that. i appreciate it. >>l yes, sir. thank you for having me. >> tucker: silicon valley does not agree with trump's policies. now they are going to the immigration plan.op up next, we'll talk to the head of a group backed by top tech leaders that is pushing for a path to i citizenship for daca recipients for more than 10 million other people. why are they doing that? should we care? stay tuned. americans,

83% try to eat healthy, yet up to 90% fall short on getting key nutrients. let's do more. one-a-day women's. complete with key nutrients we may need, plus it supports bone health with calcium and vitamin d. one-a-day women's.

>> tucker: silicon valley already trying to control what you see and think. they've got all your data. google fires dissenting employees. facebook alters its algorithms to eliminate what it calls fake news. now silicon valley is targeting the administration's immigration agenda. ceo of facebook, mark zuckerberg has a lobbying group, along with a bunch of other companies, it's called fwd.us. it wants amnesty for people here illegally, and to substantially increase our intake of foreign labor. the president,t, todd schulte, joins us. thanks for coming on. >> thanks for having me. >> tucker: it seems like the tech companies haveoi maybe more power than other institutions in the history of the world since s they control virtually everything that we have. shouldn't that make us a little uncomfortable if we are trying to control something as important as immigration legislation?

>> i don't think anybody is looking to control stuff. what we are focused on today is what to do about the daca population, what to do about dreamers. nearly 800,000 young people came to this country at the average age of six. they've been here for 20 years. the question is, are we going to try to, as a nation, deport as many people as possible, absolutely the wrong approach, or are republicans and democrats going to come together. >> tucker: i mean, let's be totally real. this is what it's alwaysth been, which is a push by business to get cheaper labor to increase margins, to make people on the businesses even richer, so why are we pretending it's like a human rights quest when really it is just an age-old search for cheaper workers? >> i think it is the right thing to do for the country and for the economy and workers too. i think the question here is -- >> tucker: good for which workers? >> good for everybody. >> tucker: how is it good for everybody to be willing to import a lot more people going to work for this?

why is that good for american workers? >> we are talking about bringing in people who aren't here in the future, going to raise wages for people. but ifla we talk but the dreamer population, the question is, do you think it is better to allow people to earn citizenship or do we think it is going to be better to try to deport -- >> tucker:to there are lots of intermediate steps. one of them would be, if you're sincere, i t think you would agree, we should end chain migration. there is no reason that someone that comes here illegally, granted citizenship, should be able to bring an average of six people from a foreign country here. >> tucker, i think it is important to understand. there are 780,000 people, and they are at risk of deportation. there are a lot of things we need to fix. you and i may not agree. i do think we should have a pathway to citizenship. >> tucker: but that's the dishonest w part. when you say it is under 800,000, you are not including their relatives, who would be eligible to come here if they becameyo citizens. so you arei actually dramaticaly underselling the reality of this

program. >> i'm not. i think it was pretty clear on that, i think there are a lot of things wrong with immigration. for these people, what are we going to do? in 10 or 15 years, do i think we should have second-class citizens? i don't. but i hope the 10 or 15 years from now we have fixed a lot of aspects, whether it's doing a better job having a legal immigration system for today's economy, but the question is, isg congress actually going to get together -- >> tucker: people are always selling me the kind of ice cream policy -- > it's awesome for everybody. but if you import millions and millions and millions ofre low-wage workers, low-skill, low-education workers as we have in the past 50 years, as no one hurt by that? is there no american worker who sees his wages remain stagnant or even decline because of that? or is supply and demand not in effect here? >> that's a great point. >> tucker: is no one hurt? >> the national academy of sciences is very clear. 91% of americans actually see their wages increased by

immigration here. >> tucker: wait a second, 91% of americanse haven't seen their wages increase. >> other things have happened -- >> tucker: that hasn't happened. hold on. so how -- i mean, as a factual matter, huge swathes of the middle class have seen their wages remain stagnant or decline. i'm not blaming immigration, but you can't say we know that low-wage immigration has a a -- >>ig it's what economists would say. i'm glad to hear you're not blaming immigration for that, because that is backed by the economic -- >> tucker: you didn't answer my question, which is, is nobody hurt? there is always a downside to everything. everybody lies about it in d.c. oh, it's all good. >> who do you think would be hurt by not deporting 800,000 people?oh >> tucker: wages matter. how much do you make at the end of the week? can you send your kids to summer camp? are you worried about medical mumucare? now i see liberals working onn behalf of big business to make certain big businesses are more profitable at the expense of

workers' wages, and i'm thinking, what happened to the liberals who used to care about wages, do you know where they are? >> again, i think it is important to keep in mind, there are ao lot of things that happen with the economy. the question is, what's the impact on immigration. putting aside the dreamer question. nine in ten americans have seen, there's a lot of things going on. immigration has had a positive impact. >> tucker: as someone who deals with that every day, that's factually untrue. nine in ten americans haven't seen their wages rise.ct that's not a real stat. >> obviously,ti immigration is t the only factor. >> tucker: i'm not saying it is. >> is that good for the economy? >> tucker: if you are selling a health care bill, gun control, something i agreed with, i would ask you the same question. nobody ever tells the truth in d.c. what is the downside? if you let 5 million new people come here, who is hurt? who sees the downside for this? >> i think the question is, who is going to be hurt by -- >> tucker: [laughs]

you're never going to answer. >> you can say that, but -- >> tucker: anyone get hurtns at all? >> i don't understand the question here. the question is, are you going to deport 800,000 people, and the answer is, that would hurt a lot of people. >> tucker: you are a tough person to debate, todd schulte. we appreciate it. we'llhe be right back. eople. eople. ♪ if you could book a flight, then add a hotel, or car, or activity in one place and save, where would you go? expedia (honking) (beeping) we're on to you, diabetes. time's up, insufficient prenatal care.

and administrative paperwork, your days of drowning people are numbered. same goes for you, budget overruns. and rising costs, wipe that smile off your face. we're coming for you too. at optum, we're partnering across the health system to tackle its biggest challenges.

we're on a mission to show drip coffee drinkers, it's time to wake up to keurig. wakey! wakey! rise and shine! oh my gosh! how are you? well watch this. i pop that in there. press brew. that's it. so rich. i love it. that's why you should be a keurig man! full-bodied. are you sure you're describing the coffee and not me? but can also loweresterol, your body's natural coq10. full-bodied. qunol helps restore this heart-healthy nutrient with 3x better absorption. qunol has the #1 cardiologist recommended form of coq10 qunol, the better coq10.

♪ hey grandpa. hey, kid. really good to see you. you too. you tell grandma you were going fishing again? maybe. (vo) the best things in life keep going. that's why i got a subaru, too. introducing the all-new crosstrek. love is out there. find it in a subaru crosstrek. ♪ >> tucker: like sand through an hourglass, another hour is done. if you liked tonight, we hope you did. tomorrow, unbelievable. our investigation into nbc news killing that investigation of harvey weinstein. how and why nbc did that? we've got a reporter who has a timeline of what actually happened and who is responsible. until then, every night at 8:00 p.m.u the show that is a sworn enemye. of lying, pomposity, smugness, and groupthink.

dvr it if you haven't. and above all, stay tuned for "hannity" in new york. good night. >> sean: thanks, tucker, as always. roy price, amazon's entertainment chief is taking a leave of absence following a sexual harassment claim. this comes as the massive harvey weinstein scandal is expanding. more and more women continue tol come forward, accusing thend hollywood producer and major democratic donor of serious misconduct. it's exposing so many things.r hollywood's history of enabling this kind of despicable conduct and also, we have proof that it weinstein's behavior towards women was not a secret in hollywood. yet people did not come forwardn and stop it all from happening. what's worse, we havean evidence -- the liberal mainstream media, the champion of women's rights, they are now exposed in this t firestorm aftr nbc news, "the new york times," they are now accused of